Students from the Southern California Immigration Coalition are calling for a STUDENT/YOUTH ORGANIZING MEETING for the May Day march! ALL STUDENTS/YOUTH ARE WELCOMED!!

Students will be organizing a student contingent for the May 1st March being organized by the Southern California Immigration Coalition (SCIC) and will then continue meeting after May 1st to build the student component of the SCIC! This student movement will work to mobilize students (High School, college…etc) and youth to integrate themselves into the mass based movement being advanced by the SCIC that now has nearly 70 organizations that support the work.

Please make the effort to attend this meeting or send a representative from your school or organization. Please come and pick up free T-shirts for the students/youth in your organizations to get them ready for the march this Friday (May 1st) at 1:00PM at Olympic and Broadway!!

One of the most important lessons of my early activism: when i was 16, working in the dc boycott house, which attracted a number of activists from a variety of tendencies, came from a veteran black panther, named paul (i forget his last name.) he left the house one night when people started passing around a joint. — naive enough (and lucky enough) not to consider the consequences to the entire movement, had we been caught in the boycott house with that material. later he told me he left because it was his policy never to provide a pretext for the police. his advice really stayed with me and i am sure, in my years of activism has kept me out of a lot of trouble, including a recently served search warrant on our home, where no drugs, weapons or other evidence of illegality were found. (these intrusion have the chilling effect on one’s activism that they are intended to have, and at least in our case found a period of private reflection and isolation was necessary. we too have had to hold back from issuing a statement, but expect to very soon, necessitated even more by the gossip and opportunism of alleged progressives, who having found out about this very private experience, took it upon themselves to use our situation to their own small political advantage.) serious activists must practice revolutionary discipline, which i think is what joaquin means when he says he would not have a loaded gun, that that is what he would do differently. these are the small errors that can have huge consequences. not that he did anything ethically wrong, just that as activist, we are under such scrutiny that we have to maintain a level of legality (to the extent possible without compromising real struggle) that other citizens might not. (any difference of opinion i may have with him about the decision to use guns in his battle with the state, are tactical, not ethical. to consider it an ethical decision, is to ignore the immense power of the apparatus we are up against, and its incredible fire power.) we also experienced the betrayal of members of the movement: (an extension of the sell out to zionist pressure within the teachers’ union, several years ago.) to attempt to keep andy from speaking up for human rights, even when it raises issues (such as palestinian human rights) that make people uncomfortable or expose divisions and at the very lease, demand dialogue. it is truly the difference between liberal, feel good, guilt based politics, and movements for real and profound revolutionary change. it is a sad reflection on members of the “left” that they would determine their support of joaquin based on his decision to carry a gun, even more hypocritical since such a decision is also a constitutional right, a legal right. in a city where the police notoriously violate human rights, in a country, the belly of the beast, the most powerful military in the world, a left that repeatedly “honors the troops” finds fault with an activist for possession of one weapon, one legal weapon. it is the romanticization of activism, and an extreme double standard: the romanticization of armed struggle when it is far away, or in the past, or focuses on a cult hero. one wonders, do they forget that nelson mandela, che guevara, fidel castro, malcolm x all used and carried weapons? are malcolm and che more than t-shirt logos? it is a double standard to call for supporting the troops or celebrating and approving obama as commander in chief of the largest imperial military force the world has known, and simultaneously not support our own comrades in the streets of los angeles when targeted by the police state apparatus? if it was wrong for joaquin to carry a gun in his trunk, what about the weapons carried by the agents of repression that searched and seized his car and arrested him? what about the huge arsenals of the u.s. military, or the military power and brutality of israel, the largest client state of the u.s. empire? do these liberals underestimate, fail to understand the attack on our own communities, as well as indigenous communities around the world (including the palestinians, who not the cause du jour, were expendable when personal prestige and power would have been the only casualty to liberal activists?) the daily violence committed by the state against the people, on so many levels: health care, education, social services, incarceration, housing or that these deficiencies kill more than guns? is activism any more than a game of prestige, awards ceremonies and board of directors positions? do they understand that their petty gossip can cost lives, can also kill, their lack of discipline, of personalization becomes a powerful weapon too? -=in service to the state, the apparatus they claim they want to deconstruct? in solidarity,

Emma Rosenthal Cafe Intifada!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A Reflection on “the Left” and my Arrest

by Joaquin Cienfuegos

I wanted to write this piece to update people on my arrest for the felony “Unlawful Possession of an Assault Riffle” case and to share with people my position on the entire matter. I wanted to send this out sooner but people would like to use this position paper against me, but I feel like the reflection is necessary regardless. I also want to take some time to reflect on other things that I’ve been thinking about regarding the movement as a whole.

I am currently completing 200 hours of community service and one year summary probation (if I complete my community service within one year, otherwise I will do two years summary probation). Part of the deal they gave me was that they kept my legally purchased semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle, and destroy it. They also dropped my felony charge to a misdemeanor: possession of a loaded weapon. I took this deal due to the fact that there was a chance if I lost this case I would do 19 months to 3 years in a state penitentiary. Even though my position has always been that we need to organize where we are at, from the street block to the cell block, I have too many responsibilities in my community, including my priority at this point which is my family responsibilities. Therefore I rather not risk being captured by the state and go behind enemy lines in their prisons. I took this deal and I am continuing to organize with the Revolutionary Autonomous Communities and Cop Watch Los Angeles – Guerrilla Chapter.

I should also start by thanking everyone who supported me in this legal battle, those who helped bail me out, and those who helped raise the money to pay the folks back that lent us money to bail me out. We were able to raise 2,000 dollars, thanks to individual donations from people, events at universities (like Cal State Northridge and Cal State Humboldt). We also thought that we would have to raise most of the money a the 1st Annual Los Angeles Anarchist Bookfair, but thankfully the funds were raised before then. The money raised at the bookfair went to the Southern California Library, the Bookfair Collective (for next year’s bookfair), Anarchist People Of Color in L.A., and to start a defense fund. Currently I’m still paying off my lawyer, and hoping we can continue to build on a defense strategy and fund, because we understand this is the nature of the state, and until we get rid of it, those with institutional power will continue to repress the movement. The majority of the support I received came from anarchists internationally, and that I am grateful for. Thank you for the world of support comrades. People of color in the U.S. as well gave a great deal of love, during the time of my arrest and legal battle.

I think that my arrest raised a lot of important questions, and it seemed like the dividing line for some activists was the fact that I had a gun. The question was why did I have a loaded semi-automatic weapon on me. A lot of liberals did not support me because of this reason, but personally my life is more precious than the support of liberals and gun-control leftists. The facts were that the police stopped me because they profiled me, it is legal to carry a weapon in the trunk of your vehicle, I just happened to have it loaded. This is probably the only thing I would have changed, I would have kept the ammunition separate from the rifle. The police searched my car illegally, and try to put a felony charge on me (by saying that this rifle is illegal in California, even though it was legally purchased at a Outdoors’ store). They couldn’t pin this on me so they dropped it to a misdemeanor, “possession of a loaded weapon.” During the investigation they brought a weapons expert who had only looked at pictures and claimed it was an assault rifle and they tried to find out if I had links to any gangs in Los Angeles.

This really made me reflect on many things. I don’t think it matters if you say you’re a leftist, progressive, or whatever, if you intend to side with the state and do the job of the police. When there are people who are coming under attack, not just me, but all the other political prisoners who have done years and decades, and you have these activists siding with the state on whether they might have done something wrong. First of all, this is a settler-colonialist system, and doesn’t have the authority to try us because this system is not legitimate in my opinion. When in Los Angeles last year the law enforcement agencies killed over 40 people, we have to begin to realize that they have waged war on indigenous, people of color/colonized people, and this genocidal war has been going on for 500 years really. So when the police have the right to murder any of us and get away with it, how is it wrong for anyone to carry a registered weapon? So it doesn’t matter if anyone is from the left or from the right, what matters is who gets in the way of the oppressed when fighting for a better world, and in the way of the people taking their lives and communities back. There are many people who are doing the work of the police, snitching, informing, and straight just being busters by siding with the enemies of the people, who rather commit acts of violence against the people than defend them. That is what is now called horizontal violence, and this is something we have to deal with as well.

People should arm themselves legally, politically, and with an understanding that we are trying not to create a culture of the gun, but this is only one tactic in self-defense of our people and our community. Unfortunately, it is a necessary element in the survival of our communities and peoples at this point. I have to agree with Franz Fanon, “Violence, is a cleansing force. It frees the native from his inferiority complex and from his despair and inaction; it makes him fearless and restores his self-respect.” Again, to me it self-defense is a necessary tactic in safe guarding our communities and our people from the state. When a community is building anything that poses a real threat to the state and the system, they will try to destroy it. So the communes will need to set up people’s militias and other mechanisms to protect itself from the fascists (learning from the Spanish Revolution, the Russian Revolution, and even just from our own experiences with the Counter Intelligence Program and the Patriot Act).

Also to speak to the fact that maybe we do pose a threat, not only to the state but to some organizations who are in bed with the state. This has become clear to me, on several occassions, which includes May Day 2007. Where some of those organizations came out and blamed Cop Watch L.A., the youth and anarchists, for the police repression, similar to the Haymarket Massacre in Chicago in 1886 (the first May Day, where eight anarchist organizers were blamed for police murder and repression). These organizations (mainstream non-profits and non-governmental organizations), play the role of house-slaves in the movement today. Their organizing is done in a way that is suitable for the state and poses no threat to the oppressive system as a whole. To keep their position and be in good with their masters, these organizations side with the state in isolating the more radical youth, anarchists, and “problem activists.” To keep their status as a large non-profits with good funding, they work with the state in keeping tabs on thes radical youth organizations. They speak of immigration reform that leaves out these same youth who are being targeted by the police, and work with the state as well as developers to further gentrify communities of color.

I personally saw how the system works from inside the Los Angeles County Jail, and it was enough time to realize that we have a lot of work to do internally. This is a bigger challenge to me, than convincing people on why I had a rifle inside the trunk of my car. As a revolutionary I do think I have to be more careful, but to paraphrase Ricardo Flores Magon, “We Revolutionary Anarchists have to be Outlaws,” we have fight these injustices at all cause even and that means breaking the laws that are put in place to keep us in control and in check. Their oppressive institutions which have no place in our communities are also legitimate targets in my opinion. > This is a challenge on anyone who wants to create a better world.

Always in Struggle.

Autonomy, Land and Liberty.

All Power Through the People.

*Recently I was stopped by the North East Division of the Los Angeles Police Department for not having a light on the plates of my car, they pulled me out and handcuffed me and asked me if I had any M-16’s in the car. They then searched my car, and did not find any “drugs or weapons,” but told me they could arrest me. They released me then but impounded my car, even though I had an abstract from court saying I can drive. It seems like they ran my plates and saw my previous arrest, so they profiled me based on that. They did search my back pack, and saw fliers for the organizations I am part of. This happened on Wednesday, April 08, 2009

Clark drops Holocaust scholar

Schedule conflict, controversy cited

Clark University canceled a campus talk scheduled for later this month by controversial Holocaust scholar Norman Finkelstein, saying his presence “would invite controversy and not dialogue or understanding,” and would conflict with a similar event scheduled around the same time. The Clark University Students for Palestinian Rights, a student-run group on the Worcester campus, had arranged for Finkelstein to speak on April 21, said Tom MacMillan, the group’s president. School administrators, however, contend the topic and the timing conflict with a similar university-sponsored event. In a letter to the university’s campus newspaper, Clark’s president, John Bassett, wrote: “The university remains committed to inviting a wide range of speakers to encourage diversity of opinions on controversial topics. My decision was predicated on its untimely and unfortunate scheduling.” Finkelstein’s address would conflict with a similar conference hosted by the university’s Strassler Family Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, scheduled for April 23-26, two days after Finkelstein’s speech, Bassett said in his letter. That conference could draw Holocaust scholars who MacMillan said may disagree with Finkelstein. Although Bassett wrote that he did not believe that students intended Finkelstein to be an affront to the conference, he said he believed it could be viewed that way. “It is possible that our understanding of the Middle East conflicts would be enriched by conversations with Professor Finkelstein,” Bassett said in the letter. “It is my judgement, however, that having Professor Finkelstein speak on the same evening as our planned conference would only invite controversy and not dialogue or understanding.” John Foley, assistant secretary at Clark, declined to comment when reached late last night. Jane Salerno, a university spokeswoman, deferred comment to a later date. Finkelstein agreed to the engagement in February, and the student group received funding from a variety of other campus organizations to help pay his speaking fee. The dispute came to the attention of college administrators after Hillel, a Jewish campus group, objected to Finkelstein’s scheduled appearance. Bassett met with MacMillan, two other members of the group, and a handful of other campus administrators, including public safety personnel, on Monday to discuss Finkelstein’s speech, MacMillan said. At that meeting, the administration suggested that as many as six uniformed or plain-clothes security officers attend Finkelstein’s speech, in case the forum became violent, MacMillan said. Finkelstein has been the center of controversy in the past. In June 2007, DePaul University in Chicago denied Finkelstein’s bid for tenure after a feud with Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz escalated when Dershowitz publicly opposed Finkelstein’s tenure application. Finkelstein asserted in his book “Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History” that Israel uses accusations of anti-Semitism to deflect criticism, a response to Dershowitz’s book “The Case for Israel.” Clark’s decision to deny Finkelstein’s speech comes less than a month after Boston College made a similar move, barring William Ayers, a University of Chicago professor and a former member of the Weather Underground, from speaking on campus at the request of a student group there.

Letter in support of Hermann Dierkes, with the list of 371
signatures. Please help to ensure its wide circulation.

Thanks to Roland Rance for collecting and collating the UK signatures

On Anti-Semitism, Boycotts, and the Case of Hermann Dierkes:
An Open Letter from Jewish Peace Activists

We are peace activists of Jewish background. Some of us typically identify
in this way; others of us do not. But we all object to those who claim to
speak for all Jews or who use charges of anti-Semitism to attempt to squelch
legitimate dissent.

We have learned with dismay the allegations regarding Hermann Dierkes, a
trade unionist and leader of the Left Party (DIE LINKE) in the German city
of Duisburg. Dierkes, in response to the recent Israeli assault on Gaza
expressed the view that one way people could help Palestinians obtain
justice would be to support the call of the World Social Forum to boycott
Israeli goods, so as to put pressure on the Israeli government.

Dierkes has been subjected to widespread and vitriolic denunciations for
anti-Semitism, and accused of calling for a repeat of the Nazi policy of the
1930s of boycotting Jewish products. Dierkes responded that “The demands of
the World Social Forum have nothing in common with Nazi-type racist
campaigns against Jews, but aim at changing the Israeli government’s policy
of oppression of the Palestinians.”

No one has made any claims of anti-Semitism against Dierkes for anything
other than his support of the boycott. Yet he has been accused of “pure
anti-Semitism” (Dieter Graumann the Vice-President of the Central Jewish
Council), of uttering words comparable to “a mass execution at the edge of a
Ukrainian forest” (Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung editorialist Achim Beer),
and of expressing “Nazi propaganda” (Hendrik Wuest, General Secretary of the
Christian Democratic Party).

We signatories have differing views on the wisdom and efficacy of calling
for a boycott of Israeli goods. Some of us believe that such a boycott is an
essential component of a campaign of boycott, divestment, and sanctions
that can end the four-decade-long Israeli occupation; others think the
better way to pressure the Israeli government is with a more selective
boycott focused on institutions and corporations supporting the occupation.
But all of us agree that it is essential to apply pressure against the
Israeli government if peace and justice are to prevail in the Middle East
and all of us agree that a call for a boycott of Israel has nothing in
common with the Nazi policy of “Don’t buy from Jews.” It is no more
anti-Semitic to boycott Israel to end the occupation than it was anti-white
to boycott South Africa to end apartheid. Social justice movements have
often called for boycotts or divestment, whether against the military regime
in Burma or the government of Sudan. Wise or not, such calls are in no way
discriminatory.

Violence in the Middle East has indeed led to some acts of anti-Semitism in
Europe. There was a call to boycott Jewish-owned stores in Rome that was
widely and appropriately condemned. We deplore such bigotry. Israel’s crimes
cannot be attributed to Jews as a whole. But, at the same time, a boycott of
Israel cannot be equated with a boycott of Jews as a whole.

An acute and disturbing form of racism rising in Europe today is
Islamophobia and xenophobia directed at immigrants from Muslim countries.
Dierkes has been a champion in defense of the rights of immigrants, while
some of those who accuse all critics of Israel of being anti-Semitic often
participate themselves — like the Israeli government and state — in such
forms of racism.

The Holocaust was one of the most horrific events in modern history. It is a
dishonor to its victims to use its memory as a bludgeon to silence
principled critics of Israel’s unconscionable treatment of Palestinians.

[We have spent just a week gathering names on this letter, circulating it
only in a few countries. We apologize to all those who would have liked to
sign, but didn’t get a chance or whose names arrived too late for inclusion.
For information on how you can help support this effort, please contact
Dierkes.Letter@gmail.com.]

“I am the only one here because I cannot go home- you are all being deported home, I am denied home”-Laila el Haddad

Laila el Haddad’s Update
from twitter.com/gazamom
After 36 hours of being held at Cairo Airport, where she was repeatedly
interrogated and given contradictory information as to what would
happen, Laila el Haddad and her two children are now being deported to
the US via London. They were put on a flight at 7 a.m. this morning.
Laila's US visa has expired, so it is likely that the family's ordeal is
not yet over.
Noor and Yousuf appear to be fine as far as the situation allows, but
the family is exhausted.
Here are Laila's latest posts.
thank you everyone for your support- I thought I could get in, I
exhausted all options. They said I needed security clearance (to go home)
i don't think I have ever gone such a long stretch with no sleep. I am
beginning to halluciate.
getting ready for deportation trip back to US via London. should be
interesting explaining this to US immigration. the saga continues.
i was asked by men in holding cell what I did to be in there, I said "I
was born Palestinian"
favorite line by egyptian mockiccer: "honestly, we did not get any sleep
over your orrdeal, we feel for you, really we do"unfortunately could not
film there; though could have tried to hide my flip. oh well.
I told everyone in the detention room I am the only one here because I
cannot go home- you are all being deported home, I am denied home
then they said "its very uncomfortable isn't it? we do'nt mind keeping
you there you know"
took my laptop and cameras; everyone was called on by country; 5 south
asians were "Pakistan"; Guneaian was "Kenya"; another was Indonesia i
was placed in a detention room with 17 others for 3 hours then taken to
a room and asked "if that's what I wanted for the forseable future
2009/4/8 s
Laila and her children Yousuf and Noor have been stuck at Cairo airport
since around 10a.m. Laila’s family and friends have tried to contact
anyone they could think of to get them to help. At one point, the
Egyptian foreign minister and the Palestinian Minister of Interior were
involved, but it seems they were unable to let her out of the airport.
Though Egyptian authorities apparently continue threatening the three
with deportation to the US and in fact said they wanted her out of the
airport tonight, airport staff has also asked whether she would like
them to build a shelter for them at the airport. The three are bracing
themselves for a longer stay.
Laila’s visa for the US has ended and she was planning to renew her visa
in Beirut, where she was going to meet her husband, a US citizen and a
Palestinian refugee who is denied his right to return to Palestine by
Israel. Before going to Beirut, Laila wanted to visit her home in Gaza.
Since Israeli authorities have closed all points of entry to the Gaza
Strip under its control, the only route to Gaza left for Laila is
through the Egyptian side of Rafah. Rafah is also temporarily closed,
and apparently Egyptian authorities have been claiming that they had
orders not to allow Palestinian residents into the country as long as
Rafah is closed. Laila is carrying a letter signed by the Egyptian
consulate in the US explaining that she is travelling to renew her visa,
but Egyptian authorities at Cairo airport are unimpressed. According to
Laila, they told her “So sue him!”
Laila’s daughter Noor is one year old, Yousuf is five years old.

Exciting times. I was a student at Hampshire College for two years, before transfering to UMASS and graduating in 1981. Those were the days fighting South African apartheid.

Towards a Divestment Policy that Makes Global Connections

University of Massachusetts/Amherst Calls for Divestiture of Companies that profit from War and Occupation

Emma Rosenthal

On March 25, The Student Government Association of the University of Massachusetts/ Amherst, passed a resolution calling for divestiture in companies that profit from war and occupation.While not specifically mentioning Israel , this motion, which is not binding on the University, had the clear intent of addressing Israeli Apartheid within a global context of war profiteering and colonization. Taken on the heels of the very successful campaign at Hampshire College, also in Amherst, that resulted in divestiture of similar companies, the resolution is part of a consolidated campaign to focus and address responses to Israeli Apartheid.

I have long argued that any discussion of Palestinian human rights is best made in a global context, that ties together the particular conditions of Palestinians with human rights struggles historically and globally. This methodology provides three important possibilities for activists:

1. International Solidarity:It draws important connections between the struggle for Palestinian human rights and other human rights struggles, focusing on issues such as war profiteering, military occupation, neo-liberalism, the military industrial complex, expropriation of resources, labor, guest worker programs, free enterprise zones, racism, apartheid, imperialism, U.S. empire,funding for education, health care and other social programs; differentiating this movement from the neo-liberal agenda that includes in its analysis, the living conditions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, but ignores the overall issue of western hegemony and U.S. empire. This approach also distinguishes itself from the White supremacist movement, which repeatedly attempts inroads into this movement, with similar rhetoric to the neo-liberal argument, but with the added emphasis, and whose purpose is fighting what they see as the ZOG, the Zionist Occupied Government, here in the U.S. and around the world. For them, fighting for Palestinians, is essential for defeating “global Jewish domination.” They see Palestinians on the front lines of that battle, though as racists, their empathy for Palestinians usually ends there.

2. Israeli Accountability: Such an approach, shields the movement from attacks of “singling out Israel.” When the position on Israeli apartheid is part of a broader human rights agenda, within a larger human rights analysis, it is the Zionists who are insisting on singling out Israel, as the only country beyond reproach.

3. U.S. Accountability:It is hypocritical for amerikans to call for BDS and human rights for Palestinians without holding accountable the U.S. government and the U.S. corporations, who are the main supporters and beneficiaries of U.S. military aid to Israel (75% of which MUST be spent on U.S. weapons systems!) The U.S. is not a neutral player here, but a very vested ally that must be brought to task as well. Additionally, while Israel shares a special relationship with the U.S. on so many levels, not least of which is a parallel narrative of colonization, divine purpose/destiny, control of and destruction of a “hostile” indigenous population, entitlement, suffering, exceptionalism, and victimization, the U.S. is the belly of the beast in regard to global empire and neo-colonialism. Israel by all accounts is simply U.S. lite. It is only fitting that any criticism of Israel be placed in the context of the larger global arena in which this travesty of justice is able to thrive.

Calling for investment policies that are socially responsible, globally, and not merely regionally, is the only investment policy that is socially responsible. On the other hand there are agencies (unions, pension funds) that have similar policies, but have singled out Israel in their unwillingness to apply these standards to Israeli militarization, human rights violations and hegemony. If we come to the conclusion that investment be universally responsible, because of awareness raised by the outrageous violations of human rights committed by Israel, or that Israel must be held accountable because of an awareness that international standards must be applied universally, as well, the outcome is the same: a human rights agenda, a connection between the lives of students and workers in the United States and around the world, (pensions, educations, etc.) and the corporations that benefit from our endowments and the extreme exploitation of workers, globally.

Saturday, April 25, 5-7 pm at the Southern
California Library for Social Studies, 6120 S
Vermont, L.A. We must continue to mobilize for
Mumia and all political prisoners, and against
the death penalty. We will be showing "In Prison
All My Life" a new British documentary about
Mumia, will have copies of the book for sale,
will be signing birthday cards to send to Mumia
and planning further action. Updates on other
political prisoners including the SF8, Puerto Rican POWs, etc.
From: MUMIA ABU-JAMAL <nattyreb@gmail.com>
Subject: !*Supreme Court lets Mumia Abu-Jamal's Conviction Stand
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 13:40:06 -0400
Reply-To: nattyreb@gmail.com
X-Topica-Id: <1239039617.inmta009.6849.1280741>
List-Help: <http://topica.com/lists/mumiacolumns@topica.com/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mumiacolumns-unsubscribe@topica.com>
via: Sis. Fatirah
================
According to this article just released, the US
Supreme Court announced that they will not give
further consideration to Mumia's appeal for a new
guilt-phase trial (in legalese, they won't grant
his "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari")
However, it also says that the US Supreme Court
may still consider the DA's appeal to re-instate
the death penalty without a new sentencing hearing!
This is another terribly dark day for justice in this country!
Hans Bennett
Abu-Jamal-News.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Supreme Court lets Mumia Abu-Jamal's conviction stand
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/06/mumia.supreme.court/
By Bill Mears
CNN Supreme Court Producer
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has let
stand the conviction of former Black Panther
Mumia Abu-Jamal, who was sent to death row for
gunning down a Philadelphia police officer 28 years ago.
He contends blacks were unfairly excluded from
the jury, and has been an outspoken activist from behind bars.
The justices made their announcement Monday.
A separate appeal over whether Abu-Jamal deserves
a new sentencing hearing has not been taken up by the high court.
Prosecutors are appealing a federal appeals court
ruling in Abu-Jamal's favor last year on the
sentencing issue. The case has attracted
international attention amid charges of
prosecutorial misconduct and the inmate's outspoken personality.
Abu-Jamal, a former radio reporter and cab driver
has been a divisive figure, with many prominent
supporters arguing that racism pervaded his
trial. Others countered Abu-Jamal is using his
skin color to escape responsibility for his
actions. They say he has divided the community
for years with his provocative writing and activism.
He was convicted for the December 9, 1981, murder
of Officer Daniel Faulkner, 25, in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Faulkner had pulled over
Abu-Jamal's brother in a late-night traffic stop.
Witnesses said Abu-Jamal, who was nearby, ran
over and shot the policeman in the back and in the head.
Abu-Jamal, once known as Wesley Cook, was also
wounded in the encounter and later confessed to
the killing, according to other witnesses testimony.
Abu-Jamal is black and the police officer was white.
Incarcerated for nearly three decades, Abu-Jamal
has been an active critic of the criminal justice system.
On a Web site created by friends to promote the
release this month of his new book, the
prisoner-turned-author writes about his fight.
"This is the story of law learned, not in the
ivory towers of multi-billion dollar endowed
universities but in the bowels of the slave-ship,
in the hidden, dank dungeons of America."
His chief defense attorney, Robert Bryan, had
urged the justices to grant a new criminal trial,
but the high court offered no explanation for its refusal to intervene.
"The central issue in this case is racism in jury
selection," Bryan wrote to supporters last month.
Ten whites and two blacks made up the original
jury panel that sentenced Abu-Jamal to death.
A three-judge panel of the 3rd Circuit U.S. Court
of Appeals a year ago kept the murder conviction
in place, but ordered a new capital sentencing
hearing. That court ultimately concluded the jury
was improperly instructed on how to weigh
"mitigating factors" offered by the defense that
might have kept Abu-Jamal off death row.
Pennsylvania law at the time said jurors did not
have to unanimously agree on a mitigating
circumstance, such as the fact that Abu-Jamal had no prior criminal record.
Months before that ruling, oral arguments on the
issue were contentious. Faulkner's widow and
Abu-Jamal's brother attended, and demonstrations
on both sides were held outside the courtroom in downtown Philadelphia.
Many prominent groups and individuals, including
singer Harry Belafonte, the NAACP and the
European Parliament, are cited on his Web site as
supporters. Prosecutors have insisted Abu-Jamal
pay the price for his crimes, and have
aggressively resisted efforts to take him of death row for Faulkner's murder.
"This assassination has been made a circus by
those people in the world and this city who
believe falsely that Mumia Abu-Jamal is some kind
of a folk hero," said Philadelphia District
Attorney Lynne Abraham last year, when the
federal appeals court upheld the conviction. "He
is nothing short of an assassin."
==================
WE'VE GOT TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD, TO BUILD THIS
MOVEMENT LARGER THAN EVER, TALK ABOUT MUMIA'S
CASE, CONTACT THE ICFFMAJ TO HELP DO WORK ON
MUMIA'S BEHALF, HOST A BOOK PARTY, HELP
FUNDRAISE, HELP WITH PHONE CALLS, DO P.E. AROUND
MUMIA'S CASE, DON'T JUST WEAR THE T-SHIRT OR
SPORT HIS PIX ON YOUR WEB PAGE, THERE IS A JOB
FOR EVERYONE TO DO, ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE, ORGANIZE!! -- Sis. Marpessa
The Power of Truth is Final -- Free Mumia!
Audio of most of Mumia's essays are at: http://www.prisonradio.org